Skip to main content

About your Search

20130121
20130129
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
at that conference yesterday. it's the new iteration of the president's campaign operation. it is a tax-exempt group. it can accept unlimited donations. it does not have to disclose its donors, although the president's new organization says it will. it says the main purpose is to mobilize support for the president's second term policy goals. this is something new. after president george w. bush won reelection in 2004, he did not have an entire campaign structure at the ready, millions of supporters strong mobilizing behind him and raising money for him to achieve his second term goals. president clinton didn't have anything like that when he was elected to a second term. no president has had an independent group do that. but barack obama now has that. his election campaign has been turned into an independent group. the chairman of the new group will be a man named jim messina. he is not exactly a political lightweight. his last job was in fact running president obama's 2012 reelection campaign. to have jim messina in charge of this thing means this is not a place where emeritus your friends to keep
the high speed computer trades. >> is there any downside to a tax? >> yeah, if you're a hedge fund manager or one of the high-speed traders, you're going to have to pay some tax and it's going to discourage you from making bets that distort the market. for the rest of us, i don't see a downside, ed. >> how would we make a determination? because you know they would come back and say oh, this is really going to hurt the economy. how would this hurt the economy? >> i don't see how discouraging speculation, which is almost all done with borrowed money. they effectively borrow money at a rate of 30 to 1. you put 3% down and borrow the rest of the money. i don't see how this hurts the economy. and if we reduce this volatility and reduce market distortion, we can get back to having a market focused on investments that create production in the future and wealth in the future, not creaming the market today through speculation. >> quickly, you think this is something congress could embrace? >> not probably in this congress in the house, but i think this is an idea. it's been around for 80 ye
, the very end of his first term since the election, him facing down the republicans about tax raises and getting them whatever they want to call it, a postponement, a retreat on holding the debt ceiling hostage, those are real changes from the sort of kumbahyah obama that we saw a lot of at this time this time early in his first term. so i think it's all good, and i think he may be emboldened. his views, he is essentially a liberal centrist. i don't think anyone can really ever doubt that. but he hasn't always stood up for it. and sometimes it seems he is so eager to find some kind of nonexistent bipartisan compromise to the party of no, that he sort of shirked from it. >> i think he has stopped -- he went -- moved from saying we can find something between us that we can agree to move together on, that was sort of what he started off saying. and now he is saying we can agree to do it my way. my way, actually, is widely agreed upon. and it is the way that we can move forward, and i think we ought to. it's a bolder stance. >> it's a bolder stance. and by the way, he won the election. >
problem. and the president wants to increase taxes to continue the spending. >> these democrats are going to spend us right into bankruptcy. they're not serious about getting things under control and stopping the spending. >> the white house is so unserious about cutting spending. >> none of that is true. i mean, to the extent that true means attached to facts. here is spending under bush. here is spending under clinton. here is how spending has dropped under president obama. these guys were not mad about george w. bush's big spike in spending, buzz they have decided to get really mad at the guy who is fixing that, and that anger is weird enough on its own terms. it's weird enough that this republican analysis of this problem is so divorced from reality. but what today's news reminded us is it's not just the analysis that is weird, it's also the purpose of the analysis, what they are using this cockamamy backwards analysis to justify that is really deeply strange. for decades, raising the debt ceiling was something that congress has been willing to do. since the presidency of fdr, congres
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)